well, that's for sure...no doubt
to be fair, a lot of people took the Freeh report as gospel in July 2012.....fair argument on why the hell she still believes it's gospel in 2016
Sally Jenkins is at it again
- Thread starter Zenophile
- Start date
well, that's for sure...no doubt
to be fair, a lot of people took the Freeh report as gospel in July 2012.....fair argument on why the hell she still believes it's gospel in 2016
Her motive is that she was getting ridiculed for initially supporting Paterno.
When she turned against him, the ridicule from her fellow sportswriters stopped.
that's a theory, i suppose.
so, she was initially supportive....meaning, she "believed" him? i remember the interview, but not necessarily her post interview opinion on the matter.
she was chosen largely based on her readers, and the credibility she banked based on the reputation of her father
who knew she'd end up being a lying, duplicitous, self promoting media tool like Brennan?
Agree. Peer pressure is important, and journalism seems to be one "profession" where an agreed upon narrative makes them all feel better.
Plus the idea of defending due process is not as easy or rewarding as condemning sexual abuse of children, one of the last true taboos.
A dying man opened his home to her. She has no shame.
"I don't think that Joe Paterno enabled child molestation. ....to throw that on Joe Paterno was not fair."
Sounds pretty level-headed to me. BTW, she never said she believed the entire FREEH report. She simply referred to the emails in the FREEH report. Nobody has ever suggested that those emails were manufactured, false, or not legitimate. Subject to interpretation? Sure. But just because she might have interpreted them differently than you might doesn't make her the devil incarnate.
Sounds pretty level-headed to me. BTW, she never said she believed the entire FREEH report. She simply referred to the emails in the FREEH report. Nobody has ever suggested that those emails were manufactured, false, or not legitimate. Subject to interpretation? Sure. But just because she might have interpreted them differently than you might doesn't make her the devil incarnate.
Here's the thing. Tossing out a casual opinion about a current event is one thing. Ruining somebody's reputation based on flimsy evidence and minimal research is totally different.
“Joe Paterno was a liar, there’s no doubt about that now.”
"In asking how a paragon of virtue could have behaved like such a thoroughly bad guy, the only available answer is that Paterno fell prey to the single most corrosive sin in sports: the belief that winning on the field makes you better and more important than other people."
Are these level headed comments?
http://www.poynter.org/2012/jenkins-on-paterno-ive-got-to-write-that-he-lied/180848/
I suppose that remains to be seen. I suspect not everything is known about Paterno's knowledge or involvement, or lack thereof, at this point. Let's wait for the legal dust to settle. I do know this. Joe never claimed to be George Washington who could never tell a lie.
I couldn't agree with you more. I also believe that the number one thing taught in "Journalism School" is not find the truth but sell the article. It doesn't matter if people like it or hate it - just so they read it. I've been involved with the press in several phases of my life -" and it's get it out before anyone else does" whether it's right or wrong.
I too have about the same amount of time left according to the statistics and I fear for my children and grandchildren as well.
Hmmmm....the way BE2 writes reminds me more of CR66 than Seth IMHO. Just saying....
She is in the click business. If you don't take into account that she increases her personal brand using sensationalism then you are clearly mistaken. Honesty and journalism rarely should be mentioned in the same sentence.
This is the same person who after writing 2 books with Lance Armstrong refused to accept that he was lying about his doping escapades until he publicly admitted to the doping. Instead of relying on her journalistic chops, she relied on her "friendship" with Armstrong to drive her outward journalistic support of him until he essentially said "hey Sally I just effed you over with my lies". This after everyone else in the world knew the truth long before it hit her on the head. Talk about last to the party. Sorry she has no journalistic integrity.
If she is so wrong, are you saying that you think Joe DID enable child molestation? Because Sally Jenkins was quite clear in her position that he DID NOT, and it was unfair to suggest he did.
Or does she have "journalistic integrity" when she agrees with you, but is a hack when she disagrees?
Or does she have "journalistic integrity" when she agrees with you, but is a hack when she disagrees?
" 3 very clear instances in those emails." Really Sally??? What 3 emails are we talking about? Did you get 3 emails that noone else got? Because the 3 emails in Louie the Liar's report NEVER, EVER said what JVP actually stated. Noone has any idea what words came from JVP's mouth. Sally, you can't be that stupid. Well, maybe you can....
Immediately after the Freeh's press conference she said "Joe Paterno was a liar, there’s no doubt about that now.” That sure doesn't sound like "Joe didn't enable child molestation" to me.
She bases things on 3 emails that a first yr, flunked out of law school student could get tossed in a court room. Some "Investigative" journalist!
A flunked out of law school student would also advise you that due process must be allowed to run its course. Those of you proclaiming to know what happened have less first hand experience than Ms Jenkins (at least she spoke to Joe). Let play out. If, at the end, Joe is vindicated and his legacy less tarnished then take your shots. But to presume you know what's behind the curtain at this point is also a rush to judgment
"Less tarnished"? Why tarnished at all? JVP reported it properly, the people he reported it to reported it properly.... to TSM.
This is a Second Mile deal, with a healthy sprinkling of CYS, and not a PSU / PSU football deal.
I only say "less tarnished" because in the minds of many he will always be considered in the worst light, no matter what else comes out. Its sad to say, but some things can never be totally undone.
There is no virtue in accepting a false narrative about a person or institution one cares about.
Look society has deemed paterno guilty. Unless free himself was to say I lied in my report no one is going to change there opinion of paterno. So who cares what people think.
Ms Jenkins didn't wait for due process to play out. She was fair with her original report, turned 180° after Freeh's press conference, then hedged her position a bit since the cases against C/S/S have weakened.
You tell us to let it play out. OK, but why don't you hold Jenkins to the same standard.
Lots of people care, and are willing to fight for the truth.
Evidently you don't care, so fine....just shut up.
Jenkins says this about Paterno in 2016:
"I don't believe he was fully truthful."
"I don't think it's fair to say that Joe Paterno enabled child molestation."
It seems to me she's walking back her condemnation of Paterno the day the Freeh report came out. However, she reinforces why she made that condemnation. She reinforces that the emails in the Freeh report, "clearly contradicted things he said to me." This was all about whether Paterno knew of sex abuse allegations against Sandusky in 1998.
Jenkins implies that she was fair to Paterno when she says, "I was never unsympathetic to Paterno."
----
Compare all this to what she said about Paterno on 7/12/2012, the day the Freeh report was published.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...skys-victims/2012/07/12/gJQAMUX9fW_story.html
"Joe Paterno was a liar, there's no doubt about that now. He was also a cover-up artist."
"In his last interview before his death, Paterno insisted as strenuously as a dying man could that he had absolutely no knowledge of a 1998 police inquiry into child moelstation accusations against his assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky."
"What's not forgivable is his sustained determination to lie from 2001 onward."
Jenkins doesn't actually cite her interview with Paterno, in which Paterno said of 1998, "I had never heard a thing." I suppose that response is Paterno insisting as strenuously as possible he had no knowledge, per Jenkins' claim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/sports/paterno-interview/
Instead, Jenkins actually took the time to look up and quote directly from Paterno's grand jury testimony. Paterno was asked at the grand jury whether he knew of any knowledge of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky, other than the McQueary incident, through rumor, direct knowledge, or any other fashion.
Jenkins quotes Paterno's grand jury response as follows: "I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it."
Jenkins failed to include the rest of Paterno's response.
This is Paterno's full response to that question, at page 178 of the 12/16/2011 hearing transcript: "I do not know of anything else that Jerry would be involved in of that nature, no. I do not know of it. You did mention -- I think you said something about a rumor. It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody. I don't know. I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."
http://www.dauphincounty.org/govern...chultz/12-16-Preliminary-Trial-Transcript.pdf
If Jenkins had included Paterno's full response, including his uncertainty about hearing rumors, it would not have supported her claim that, "Paterno insisted as strenuously as a dying man could that he had absolutely no knowledge of a 1998 police inquiry."
Jenkins principal basis for calling Paterno a liar are the 1998 emails. She never bothers to disclose that they were neither sent or received by Paterno.
----
In 2016, Jenkins said, "I was never unsympathetic to Paterno." In 2012, Jenkins failed to fully quote Paterno because it would not have supported her argument, and she failed to acknowledge the 1998 emails, the basis for her conclusions, were neither sent nor received by Paterno.
In 2016, Jenkins said, "I don't believe he was fully truthful". In 2012, she said, "Joe Paterno is a liar, there's no doubt about that now"
In 2016, Jenkins said, "I don't think it's fair to say that Joe Paterno enabled child molestation." In 2012, she said, "He was also a cover-up artist."
----
As easy as it may be to feel outrage at the contradictions above, it's good to see Jenkins softening her stance. Hopefully it doesn't take another three and half years for Jenkins to understand the irony behind her inability to remember her own thoughts and words.
One person's characterization as "uncertainty" might be viewed by another as "artful evasion" by a witness skilled in media relations and coached by his own attorney. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Joe doesn't need to be "vindicated." If Freeh, or Jenkins, or anyone else wants to accuse Joe of wrongdoing it's up to them to produce the evidence supporting their accusations. They haven't done so.
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. If I walk into your house from outside and I'm wearing a wet raincoat, carrying a wet umbrella, and have wet shoes, you can reasonably conclude its raining outside. Sure, its possible that I was hit with a billion water balloons, but not likely.
One can craft any number of rationalizations in a case involving circumstantial evidence. But people will generally believe the most likely scenario.
In this case, there is some circumstantial evidence. Maybe its thin, but its still there. Does that effectively shift the burden to Paternos to disprove it? I guess it depends which side you're on.
One can craft any number of rationalizations in a case involving circumstantial evidence. But people will generally believe the most likely scenario.
In this case, there is some circumstantial evidence. Maybe its thin, but its still there. Does that effectively shift the burden to Paternos to disprove it? I guess it depends which side you're on.
Whatever you do, just keep their attention focused on the shiny object.
Do you ever regret being a pedophile enabling coverup artist?
And providing travel advice from Venice to Cannes sounds like CR to me as well.
Circumstantial evidence of what CR66? A coverup? There is zero evidence that there was any effort to cover up McQueary's report, and ample evidence that people at Penn State shared it with outsiders who were in a position to act on.
I think what Jenkins was saying is that Joe disappointed many because on this one big issue he chose to "punt" instead of lead.
For example, when he so strongly advocated for instant replay he could have just as easily said he was aware of repeated bad calls, but he'll leave it to the NCAA to work out. Instead, he advocated loudly and often, every chance he could, for the adoption of instant replay. It was that type of leadership people had come to expect. When he simply kicked the JS issue upstairs and washed his hands of it.... well, it was not consistent with the Joe so many had embraced as a role model.
Jenkins is saying (I think) that Joe might not have wanted to admit this to himself, and rationalized that reporting it to C/S/S was enough (even if he thought they were blobs). But deep in the recesses of his heart he knew it wasn't enough. It wasn't up to his own standards. And for him to think kids might have gotten hurt because he didn't lead when he had the chance was hard for him to accept.
It has nothing to do with covering up, or being a criminal. It has to do with Joe not meeting his own expectations.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
For example, when he so strongly advocated for instant replay he could have just as easily said he was aware of repeated bad calls, but he'll leave it to the NCAA to work out. Instead, he advocated loudly and often, every chance he could, for the adoption of instant replay. It was that type of leadership people had come to expect. When he simply kicked the JS issue upstairs and washed his hands of it.... well, it was not consistent with the Joe so many had embraced as a role model.
Jenkins is saying (I think) that Joe might not have wanted to admit this to himself, and rationalized that reporting it to C/S/S was enough (even if he thought they were blobs). But deep in the recesses of his heart he knew it wasn't enough. It wasn't up to his own standards. And for him to think kids might have gotten hurt because he didn't lead when he had the chance was hard for him to accept.
It has nothing to do with covering up, or being a criminal. It has to do with Joe not meeting his own expectations.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
This is just a dumb analogy. Joe Paterno was an expert in football. He was qualified to lead here. Joe Paterno was not an expert in pedophile investigations, and he knew he didn't have the expertise, thus it was rightly passed on to his superiors.
Note that this may well be why she is more skeptical now..... Burnt that bad once? You start expecting to get burned from there on out.
Maybe. But I also think Joe was a guy (remember, he was a vet), who understood chain of command. I think he was rightly afraid his reputation and influence would either not allow Sandusky to a fair shake (they were not friends, remember) or would cause the case to be taken too lightly. I think he was leery of his power in this case.
Similar threads
